[quote author=50445353525F405344360 link=1281669694/43#43 date=1330247462]PJ, how about instead of digging yourself in deeper without knowing what you are talking about, you stop responding, take your time and read the report. You have put yourself in this position before by taking Fishing World articles a little too seriously.

I have had a look. I quick peruse was enough to find some of the Fishing World quotes and that they were 100% accurate (eg the one on spillover effect). The scope of reference was not limited at all - you still won't explain what they weren't allowed to look at.

So what was wrong with the scientists and how was the scope limited with repect to the scientific evidence?

Item 2 in the terms of reference:

Quote:

2.review the scientific data provided to the Panel by the NSW Department of Primary Industries and the Office of Environment & Heritage;

It doesn't say that the scientific data was limited to this source nor is there any indication it was.

Quote:

The Prof. who headed the committee has said this is not their finding (main or otherwise)!

Yet that is what the report says. There is no mention of scrapping marine parks in the recommendations, even indirectly. Strange, hey?

The point (yours) was that marine parks should be expanded according to the the report's recommendations. It does not say this at all. No one has suggested it says that marine parks should be scrapped either - get it?

Quote:

I have had a look. I quick peruse was enough to find some of the Fishing World quotes and that they were 100% accurate (eg the one on spillover effect).

Did you notice that the statement about the spillover effect does not actually say what you thought it said?

They say that NSW fisheries are well managed and it discounts any significant spillover effect. Pretty daming for your position. Plus you have changed the subject - you said the quote wasn't in the report at all.

It doesn't say that the scientific data was limited to this source nor is there any indication it was.

Do you know how these things work? They are limited to the terms of reference provided.

Quote:

The point (yours) was that marine parks should be expanded according to the the report's recommendations.

If it wasn't for the silly Fishing World article, you would interpret the recommendation the same way and insist that the scientists must therefor be being paid to lie.

Quote:

They say that NSW fisheries are well managed and it discounts any significant spillover effect. Pretty daming for your position.

How so? I think they are well managed too. The recently created marine parks are a good example of that. You need to be more careful with reading too much into these vague generalisations.

Quote:

Plus you have changed the subject - you said the quote wasn't in the report at all.

I did not say that that particular quote is not in the report. Congratualtions on finding an accuracy in the Fishing World article. They must have slipped up. This quote for example is not in the report.

Quote:

The report recommended that fisheries management strategies be improved and that the NSW Government “move away from the representative type model as it really doesn’t suit marine protection”.

It doesn't say that the scientific data was limited to this source nor is there any indication it was.

Do you know how these things work? They are limited to the terms of reference provided.

And you have sneakily taken one point in isolation, when in fact they looked at all aspects of scientific evidence, overseas data and submissions from green groups.

Quote:

The point (yours) was that marine parks should be expanded according to the the report's recommendations.

If it wasn't for the silly Fishing World article, you would interpret the recommendation the same way and insist that the scientists must therefor be being paid to lie.

What does that babble mean? No one has suggested that the report says that marine parks be scrapped - except you attributing it to FW mag.

Quote:

They say that NSW fisheries are well managed and it discounts any significant spillover effect. Pretty daming for your position.

How so? I think they are well managed too. The recently created marine parks are a good example of that. You need to be more careful with reading too much into these vague generalisations.

Obviously they mean apart from the marine parks. As to the marine parks they are saying they are poor management. More black is white double talk from you.

Quote:

Plus you have changed the subject - you said the quote wasn't in the report at all.

I did not say that that particular quote is not in the report. Congratualtions on finding an accuracy in the Fishing World article. They must have slipped up. This quote for example is not in the report.

Quote:

The report recommended that fisheries management strategies be improved and that the NSW Government “move away from the representative type model as it really doesn’t suit marine protection”.

Can you find it?

So now only one quote is not in the report (maybe given there are 142 pages to go through). Have you considered it might have be said in the interview instead - if so a relatively minor slip up.

Can you quote the bit in the report (not the FW article) that says that? The closest thing I found to a direct reference to marine parks in the recommendations was when the scientists recommended someone tell them what marine parks are for.

Quote:

So now only one quote is not in the report

I did not say that. If you want to audit every quote to find which ones are made up, go ahead.

Can you quote the bit in the report (not the FW article) that says that? The closest thing I found to a direct reference to marine parks in the recommendations was when the scientists recommended someone tell them what marine parks are for.

“The Audit Panel concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large fisheries benefit from spillover,” the report says.

Can you quote the bit in the report (not the FW article) that says that? The closest thing I found to a direct reference to marine parks in the recommendations was when the scientists recommended someone tell them what marine parks are for.

“The Audit Panel concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large fisheries benefit from spillover,” the report says.

“

That is not saying that marine parks are poor management. It is almost a tautology. It is a purely qualitative statement about the quantity of the benefit. Beyond that, it says little at all. Obviously you get bigger benefits from improved improved techniques if the previous management was worse.

You are yet again running into trouble by reading far too much into vague generalisations.

Quote:

PS: another interesting point in the report was there description of 'serious academic debate' on the fisheries benefits of marine parks. A bit different to your depiction of a handful of dissenters.

Not really. There is still serious debate on the extent of the benefit and for example what extent and distribution of no take zone maximises the benefit. This is not the same as saying that researchers are arguing over whether marine parks are necessary or an improvement on current alternatives.

Can you quote the bit in the report (not the FW article) that says that? The closest thing I found to a direct reference to marine parks in the recommendations was when the scientists recommended someone tell them what marine parks are for.

“The Audit Panel concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large fisheries benefit from spillover,” the report says.

“ [/quote]

That is not saying that marine parks are poor management. It is almost a tautology.

Then what exactly is the benefit of this costly and divisive policy?

It is a purely qualitative statement about the quantity of the benefit. Beyond that, it says little at all.

And what else is there? The quality of the benefit is the nub of the issue.

Obviously you get bigger benefits from improved improved techniques if the previous management was worse.

You are yet again running into trouble by reading far too much into vague generalisations.

You are forgetting that they are also harshly critcal of the zoning according to representatve areas.

Quote:

PS: another interesting point in the report was there description of 'serious academic debate' on the fisheries benefits of marine parks. A bit different to your depiction of a handful of dissenters.

Not really. There is still serious debate on the extent of the benefit and for example what extent and distribution of no take zone maximises the benefit. This is not the same as saying that researchers are arguing over whether marine parks are necessary or an improvement on current alternatives.

Well if you make things general enough virtually no one is against marine parks. It's when you come down to specifics such as zonings and what the parks are likely to acheive you have considerable controvery.

Resilience, sustainability, more fish. It is not costly. It can save a lot of money. Divisiveness is a property of change, not the policy itself. I am going to write an article about this for you.

Quote:

And what else is there? The quality of the benefit is the nub of the issue.

It was a statement about the extent of the benefit that did not actually say anything meaningful about the extent of the benfit. It merely stated the obvious. Does that make more sense? It is not a question of the type of benefit, but how much difference it makes.

Quote:

You are forgetting that they are also harshly critcal of the zoning according to representatve areas.

I wouldn't say harsh. Note that I am also critical of that approach. Also, their actual recommendations include clarification of the purpose of marine parks. Asking what something is for is hardly a criticism.

In fact, their recommendations could well be interpretted as an endorsement of the specific suggestions I make.

Quote:

Well if you make things general enough virtually no one is against marine parks. It's when you come down to specifics such as zonings and what the parks are likely to acheive you have considerable controvery

Does the audit committee make any specific recommendations, other than the formation of another committee?

I have presented ample evidence of the cost and all you have ever come up with is flat denials like this.

Divisiveness is a property of change, not the policy itself. I am going to write an article about this for you.

Apart from the parks themselves there are the lies told to justify them and the way they are rammed down our throats.

Quote:

And what else is there? The quality of the benefit is the nub of the issue.

It was a statement about the extent of the benefit that did not actually say anything meaningful about the extent of the benfit. It merely stated the obvious. Does that make more sense? It is not a question of the type of benefit, but how much difference it makes.

Doesn't the term 'no signifcant' mean anything to you?

Quote:

You are forgetting that they are also harshly critcal of the zoning according to representatve areas.

I wouldn't say harsh. Note that I am also critical of that approach. Also, their actual recommendations include clarification of the purpose of marine parks. Asking what something is for is hardly a criticism.

In fact, their recommendations could well be interpretted as an endorsement of the specific suggestions I make.

Your own zoning examples look equally arbitrary and ineffectual.

Quote:

Well if you make things general enough virtually no one is against marine parks. It's when you come down to specifics such as zonings and what the parks are likely to acheive you have considerable controversy

Does the audit committee make any specific recommendations, other than the formation of another committee?

Resilience and sustainability are not in any way related to the spillover effect. Unless you magically know what qualifies as significant then you have no way of knowing how many more fish the author thinks we will catch. Furthermore, an improvement is an improvement, regardless of the magnitude.

Quote:

I have presented ample evidence of the cost and all you have ever come up with is flat denials like this

Well done. I have refuted each example as they all had obvious holes. You seem to forget that bit.

Quote:

Doesn't the term 'no signifcant' mean anything to you?

By itself it is meaningless. Again you confuse yourself by reading far too much into vague generalisations. Can you interpret the extent of the benefit in any way from this statement?

Quote:

Your own zoning examples look equally arbitrary and ineffectual.

The principles on which the examples are based is clearly outlined in the other article.

Quote:

Is that a criticism?

It was phrased in the form of a question. Whether it is a criticism depends on the answer. I read through the recommendations and did not see anything other than the comment I quoted (more marine parks in specific regions) that relates directly to how fisheries are managed in practice. They all seemed to be along the lines of 'take this into account' or 'judge it on this basis' that were little more than ways to rephrase the questions that were asked of them, eg:

Q: How should economic issues be taken into account

A: Economic issues should be taken into account in selecting marine park zones. A committee should be established to figure out how to do this.

Perhaps the government got what it wanted out of the review, but I am not sure what that is, other than a licence for departmental shuffling.

Resilience and sustainability are not in any way related to the spillover effect. Unless you magically know what qualifies as significant then you have no way of knowing how many more fish the author thinks we will catch. Furthermore, an improvement is an improvement, regardless of the magnitude.

The theory of marine parks for fisheries management is that fish will build up in numbers in the no fishing zones and spillover and replenish the areas open to fishing - or have I missed something?

Furthermore you can't just get away with an improvement is an improvement as a justification. Any management initiative which reduces the ability of fisherman to catch fish will lead to an increase in fish numbers and by inference resiliance and sustainability. If we don't fish at all fish numbers would be much better off. The proper objective is to manage fishing sustainably, not to maximise the the fish population.

Quote:

I have presented ample evidence of the cost and all you have ever come up with is flat denials like this

Well done. I have refuted each example as they all had obvious holes. You seem to forget that bit.

No, you have just come up with flat denials and/or ignored the examples completely.

Quote:

Doesn't the term 'no signifcant' mean anything to you?

By itself it is meaningless. Again you confuse yourself by reading far too much into vague generalisations. Can you interpret the extent of the benefit in any way from this statement?

Can you quantify the extent of the benefit of your marine park examples? Should I ignore them because you can't?

Quote:

Your own zoning examples look equally arbitrary and ineffectual.

The principles on which the examples are based is clearly outlined in the other article.

The so called principles were made up by you with no understanding of the issues and are invalidated by the audits finding that given that NSW fisheries are well managed there is likely to be no significant spillover effect from marine parks.

Quote:

Is that a criticism?

It was phrased in the form of a question. Whether it is a criticism depends on the answer. I read through the recommendations and did not see anything other than the comment I quoted (more marine parks in specific regions)

There is nothing in the report recommending more marine parks and this has also been emphased in an interview with the Professor who headed the audit.

that relates directly to how fisheries are managed in practice. They all seemed to be along the lines of 'take this into account' or 'judge it on this basis' that were little more than ways to rephrase the questions that were asked of them, eg:

Q: How should economic issues be taken into account

A: Economic issues should be taken into account in selecting marine park zones. A committee should be established to figure out how to do this.

Perhaps the government got what it wanted out of the review, but I am not sure what that is, other than a licence for departmental shuffling.

One of the audits critcisms was that the parks and zoning were implimented with indecent haste. It would be somewhat hypocritical for them to turn around and do the same.

The theory of marine parks for fisheries management is that fish will build up in numbers in the no fishing zones and spillover and replenish the areas open to fishing - or have I missed something?

That is the 'catching more fish' bit. It has nothing to do with the other advantages like resilience and sustainability.

Quote:

Furthermore you can't just get away with an improvement is an improvement as a justification.

It wasn't a justification for anything. I was merely pointing out your tendency to read far too much into vauge generalisations. Why is it that you can point out the vagueness in my response but not in your original comment? Perhaps I should wrap it in more layers of convolution so we can waffle on all day without actually saying anything. Do we have to discuss this for ten pages for such a simple emssage to sink in?

Quote:

Any management initiative which reduces the ability of fisherman to catch fish will lead to an increase in fish numbers and by inference resiliance and sustainability.

True, but marine parks improve resilience through other important mechanisms that other initiatives do not replicate. Furthermore it does this, and increases fish stocks, without reducing the number of fish caught.

Quote:

Can you quantify the extent of the benefit of your marine park examples? Should I ignore them because you can't?

You are missing the point PJ. I am not arguing for marine parks on the basis of a vague and meaningless comment by some committee regarding the extent of the benfit. You on the other hand are trying to read something into a vauge and meaningless comment.

Quote:

The so called principles were made up by you with no understanding of the issues

Not true. If you can go beyond the vague and meaningless I might be able to give a mroe specific response.

Quote:

and are invalidated by the audits finding that given that NSW fisheries are well managed there is likely to be no significant spillover effect from marine parks

Again, not true. Can you point out where I have rested the argument in favour of marine parks on the magnitude of the benefit? Can you point out how a vague anbd meaningless comment regarding the magnitude invaldiates anything? Your argument here is incredibly stupid. You are doing nothing more than saying we should not follow through on a good idea because it is not a 'very' good idea.

Quote:

One of the audits critcisms was that the parks and zoning were implimented with indecent haste. It would be somewhat hypocritical for them to turn around and do the same.

They have taken this to an absurd extreme. Did they go to the trouble of pointing out where the haste had any impact on the outcome and how a better outcome may have been achieved? Or was it only the haste itself and not the final outcome they were criticising? Should we conclude that they would be happy with the same outcome achieved at a glacial pace after funding endless highly paid committees that are too timid to recomend anything other than a committee?